Digital BW, The Print

I posed the same question at our Digital Arts Group here in N.J. and 
was told by some tech-types present that the "megabyte" file size 
from a DSLR can't be directly compared to the "megabyte" file size 
from a scanner.  Apparently it has something to do the the algorithms 
that accompany/process the camera generated file.



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, SMuncy 
<smuncy@n...> wrote:
> You might consider (this is my plan anyway) to get a good flatbed 
with
> negative capacity.
> 
> People who shoot digital cameras tell me that they can print a 
*insert
> extravagant size* photo from their 6meg DSLR. If this is true, then 
it
> doesn't take much of a scanner (resolution wise) to get a 6meg file 
from a
> MF negative.
> 
> At 2400 ppi it would be 3900 x 5300 or a 20+Meg file for 645 
format. That
> would be 13 x 17in print at 300 dpi.
> 
> If you use 6x6 or 6x7 format, or have a higher scan rate then you 
can make
> very large prints indeed. Also if you get that once in a lifetime 
image, you
> can always have it commercially scanned at super resolutions.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> 
> On 8/20/04 12:04 PM, "Stephen Kobrin" <kobrins@w...> wrote:
> 
> > My reading of the discussion of this topic on the list is that
> > flatbed scanners compromise quality to the point where I might as
> > well stick with 35mm film.  Now my question: has anyone had any 
luck
> > with reasonably priced commercial scans of MF film?  (One lab in
> > Philly wants around $35 per shot for a 20-40mg scan and I do not
> > consider that reasonably priced.)   I would want to print 8X10 
and I
> > suspect that a 20mg scan would do that -- although I may be off 
here.